ÿWPC? …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ ð 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î BJ 0†g 0í 1u} U,ò 0ÀU,ÞU> U6H D3~B)±DCÚ 0@ AM]U*ª!Ônõæcv~IvÓÇ AOšÆé 0D¯ D/ó B"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡   D ! D" # $ % D& Ó€2 ypÑ 3|x2 ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernPp ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓÑ\R€€\Ñ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òJuly€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔThe€Chancellor€also€rejected€Shelbyððs€defense€that€Smith€did€not€haveÏan€insurable€interest€in€the€property.€€Shelby€did€not€appeal€this€ruling.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔOur€review€is€not€restricted€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€We€mustÏdetermine€if€the€result€reached€by€the€lower€court€is€correct€regardless€ofÏð ðthe€reasoning€employed€to€reach€the€result.ðð€€ò òòòKelly€v.€Kellyó óóó,€679€S.W.2dÏ458,€460€(Tenn.€App.€1984).ÌPtPtStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€Õ,XXdìdÈ7ÑœIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€.0,;+'h|™` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌTED€C.€SMITH,à àà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9603„CH„00076Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€WASHINGTON€COUNTYÏCHANCERY€COURTÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€G.€RICHARD€JOHNSON,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHE€SHELBY€INSURANCE€COMPANYà à)ÌOF€THE€SHELBY€INSURANCE€GROUP,)€REVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€COMPLAINT€DISMISSED€Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.)€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌALBERT€J.€HARB€of€HODGES,€DOUGHTY€&€CARSON,€Knoxville,€forÏAppellantÌÌMARK€S.€DESSAUER€of€HUNTER,€SMITH€&€DAVIS,€Kingsport,€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€declaratory€judgment€action.€€The€complaintÏseeks€a€declaration€that€a€loss€caused€by€damage€to€theÏplaintiffððs€building€is€covered€under€a€commercial€propertyÏinsurance€policy€issued€by€The€Shelby€Insurance€Company€(Shelby).€ÏFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€Chancellor€held€that€there€wasÏcoverage€under€the€œpolicy€and€awarded€the€plaintiff€a€judgment€forÏ$12,352.92.›€€Shelby€appeals,€arguing€that€there€is€no€coverageÏbecause€the€premises€were€vacant€at€the€time€of€the€loss.€€It€alsoÏargues€that€the€loss€is€not€covered€because€the€policy€excludesÏcoverage€for€damages€ð ð[œc]aused›€by€or€resulting€from€theft.ðð€€TheÏplaintiff,€Ted€C.€Smith€(Smith),€raises,€as€an€additional€issue,Ïthe€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€award€the€statutory€bad€faithÏpenalty€authorized€by€T.C.A.€ðð€56„7„105(a).ÌÌà àà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó;€however,€the€record€comes€to€usÏaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€that€we€must€honorÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€of€fact.€€Rule€13(d),€œT.R.A.P.;›€òòò òCity€of€œKingsport›€v.ÍStewartó óóó,€920€S.W.2d€658€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€courtððsÏconclusions€of€law€are€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€òòò òUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€œHuddleston›ó óóó,€854€S.W.2dÏ87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).ÌœÇÓ  Ó›IÌÌÓ  Óà àà àOn€or€about€March€2,€1993,€an€unknown€person€œ(or›Ïœpersons)›€œsurreptitiously€entered€a›€building€œin€which€Smith›€wasÏœwarehousing€personal€property€and›€ripped€out€electrical€wiring,Ïplumbing€pipes,€and€condenser€coils€in€the€air€conditioningÏsystem,€in€order€to€extract€œcopper›€œwiring›€and€tubing.€€In€theÏprocess€of€removing€the€copper,€the€individual(s)€did€extensiveÏdamage€to€the€interior€of€the€building.€€Smith€reported€theÏincident€to€the€police,€who€in€their€report€listed€the€incident€asÏa€theft.€€Thereafter,€Smith€filed€a€claim€with€œthe€insurance›€agentÏthrough€whom€the€policy€œhad€been›€œsecured.›€€ÌÌà àà àOn€April€5,€1993,€a€representative€of€Shelby€sent€SmithÏa€œletter,›€which€œstated,€in€part,›€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€order€that€the€Company€may€continue€toÏhandle€this€matter,€we€want€you€to€know€thatÏwe€are€proceeding€under€a€Reservation€ofÏRights.€€We€are€reserving€our€rights€under€theÏpolicy€for€the€following€reasons:ÌÌà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà àà àò ò6.à àVacancyÌà àà àà8 àó óIf€the€building€where€loss€or€damageÏoccurs€has€been€vacant€for€more€thanÍ60€consecutive€days€before€that€lossÏor€damage,€we€will:Ìò òà8 àà8 àà8 àa.à àó óNot€pay€for€any€loss€or€damage€€€€€€Ïcaused€by€any€of€the€following€€€€€€Ïeven€if€they€are€Covered€€€€€€€€€€€€œÏCauses›€of€Loss:Ìà àà àà àà àò ò(1)€ó óVandalism;Ìà àà àà àà àò ò(5)€ó óTheft;€orÌà àà àà àà àò ò(6)€ó óAttempted€theft.ÌÌà8 àà8 àAs€you€can€see€from€the€above,€it€is€probableÏthat€all€or€a€part€of€your€loss€may€not€beÏcovered€under€your€insurance€policy.€€We€shallÏcontact€you€further€as€soon€as€a€decisionÏregarding€coverage€has€been€made.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓœ(bold›€print€in€œoriginal).›€€On€June€1,€1993,€Shelby€sent€Smith€aÏletter€denying€œcoverage.€€That€correspondence€also€relied€upon€theÏvacancy€provision.€€No›€mention€was€made€œof›€any€other€policyÏœprovision€in€either€letter.›€€œÌÌà àà àOn€January€6,€1994,€the€plaintiff€filed€the€complaint€inÏthe€case€at€bar.€€Shelbyððs€answer€was€filed€on€March€7,€1994.›ÌÌà àà àOn€August€28,€1995,€Shelby€filed€a€Motion€to€Amend€itsÏAnswer€to€include,€among€other€things,€œthe€following€defense:›€ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà8 àœ.€.€.€under›€ð ðCauses€of€Loss„Basic€Form,Ïsubsection€8",€the€defendant€avers€that€noÏcoverage€is€provided€for€vandalism€caused€byÏor€resulting€from€theft€except€for€theÍbuilding€damage€caused€by€the€breaking€in€orÏexiting€of€burglars.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Chancellor€œconducted€a€hearing›€on€September€8,€1995.€ÏHe€found€œthe›€following€operative€facts€pertaining€to€the€cause€ofÏthe€loss:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àSomeone€.€.€.€got€into€that€property€.€.€.€andÏripped€out€the€electrical€conduit€and€parts€ofÏheat€pumps€and€air€conditioning€equipment,€andÏgenerally,€ripped€the€interior€of€the€buildingÏapart,€evidently€to€take€the€copper€out€of€theÏconduit€and€out€of€the€air€conditioner€and€outÏof€other€interior€parts€and€portions€of€theÏbuilding,€and€removed€that€copper€and€took€itÏwith€them€leaving€the€building€in€a€damagedÏcondition.ÌÌÌÌÓÓHe€determined€that€the€ð ðvacancyðð€provision€referred€to€in€theÏcompanyððs€reservation€of€rights€letter€was€not€applicable,€findingÏthat€the€property€was€in€fact€occupied€by€Smith€and€being€utilizedÏby€him€as€a€warehouse.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€Curiously,€the€Chancellor€did€not€address,Íin€any€way,€Shelbyððs€defense€based€upon€the€exclusionary€languageÏpertaining€to€loss€caused€by€theft.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÌÓ  Óà àà àIn€òòò òœTata›€v.€œNichols›ó óóó,€848€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€1993),€theÏSupreme€Court€reiterated€the€œfamiliar€general›€œprinciplesÏapplicable›€to€the€construction€of€œinsurance›€œpolicies:›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€analysis€used€in€construing€insuranceÏpolicies€is€well€settled.€€"InsuranceÏcontracts€like€other€contracts€should€beÏconstrued€so€as€to€give€effect€to€theÏintention€and€express€language€of€theÏparties."€€ò òòòœBlaylock›€&€Brown€Construction,ÏInc.€v.€œAIU›€Insurance€Coóóó ó.,€796€S.W.2d€146,Ï149€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Words€in€an€insuranceÏpolicy€are€given€their€common€and€ordinaryÏmeaning.€€Where€language€in€an€insuranceÏpolicy€is€susceptible€of€more€than€oneÏreasonable€interpretation,€however,€it€isÏambiguous.€€òòSee€e.g.,€ò òMoss€v.€Golden€RuleÏLife€Insurance€Coó óóó.,€724€S.W.2d€367,€368Ï(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Where€the€ambiguousÏlanguage€limits€the€coverage€of€an€insuranceÏpolicy,€that€language€must€be€construedÏagainst€the€insurance€company€and€in€favor€ofÏthe€insured.€€òòò òAllstate€Insurance€Co.€v.ÏWattsó óóó,€811€S.W.2d€883,€886€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€650.€€We€approach€our€òòde€novoóó€review€with€these€œprinciples›Ïin€mind.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àAlthough€not€addressed€by€the€Chancellor,€we€believeÏShelbyððs€defense€based€upon€the€ð ðtheftðð€exclusion€is€dispositiveÏof€this€appeal.€€Therefore,€we€will€œfirst€address›€that€œissue.€€WeÏwill,€as€a€part€of€our€inquiry,€examine€the€plaintiffððs€theoryÏthat€Shelby€should€not€be€permitted€to€assert€this€exclusion€underÏthe€facts€of€this€case.›ÌÌà àà àSmith€argues€that€because€neither€the€reservation€ofÏrights€letter€nor€the€coverage€denial€letter€mentioned€the€damageÏð ð[œc]aused›€by€or€resulting€from€theftðð€exclusionary€provision,ÏShelby€has€either€waived€œits›€rights€under€that€provision€or€isÏequitably€estopped€from€relying€upon€those€œrights.€€We€disagree.›ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€that€Shelby€has€not€òòexpresslyóó€waivedÏreliance€on€the€ð ðtheftðð€provision,€as€the€reservation€of€rightsÏletter€contains€the€following€statement:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àNo€act€of€any€Company€representative,€whileÏinvestigating,€negotiating€settlement€of€theÏclaim€or€defending€a€lawsuit,€shall€beÏconstrued€as€waiving€any€Company€rights.€€TheÏCompany€reserves€the€right€under€the€policy€toÏdeny€coverage€to€your€[sic]€or€anyone€claimingÏcoverage€under€the€policy.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€question€then€is€whether€Shelby€should€be€equitably€estoppedÏfrom€asserting€œthis›€exclusionary€provision.€€As€stated€by€œtheÏCourt›€of€Appeals€in€the€case€of€ò òòòœGitter›€v.€Tennessee€FarmersÏœMut›.€œIns›.€Co.,€ó óóó450€S.W.2d€780,€783€(œTenn.App›.€1969),ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[œt]he›€essential€elements€of€an€equitableÏestoppel€as€related€to€the€party€claiming€theÏestoppel,€are,€(1)€lack€of€knowledge€and€ofÏthe€means€of€knowledge€of€the€truth€as€to€theÏfacts€in€question;€(2)€reliance€upon€theÏconduct€of€the€party€estopped,€and€(3)€actionÏbased€thereon€of€such€a€character€as€to€changeÏhis€position€prejudicially.€€ò òòòProvidentÏWashington€œIns›.€Co.€v.€Reese€ó óóó(1963),€213ÏTenn.€355,€373€S.W.2d€613.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.€óó€The€ò òòòœGitter›€ó óóócourt€noted€that€ð ðthe€crux€of€the€issue€onÏequitable€estoppel€is€whether€the€complainant€relied€on€theseÏstatements€and€this€œconduct€and›€thereby€changed€her€positionÏprejudicially.ðð€€òòId.€óó€Subsequent€cases€dealing€with€equitableÏestoppel€have€likewise€emphasized€the€reliance€and€detrimentalÍchange€of€position€requirements.€€òòSee€ò òRobinson€v.€TennesseeÏFarmers€œMut›.€œIns›.€Co.,€ó óóó857€S.W.2d€559,€563€(œTenn.App›.€1993)Ï(ð ðThe€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€insured€to€prove€that€aÏmisrepresentation€was€made€and€that€the€insured€reasonably€reliedÏupon€the€misrepresentation.ðð);€ò òòòSpears€v.€Commercial€œIns›.€Co.Ïof€Newark,€N.J.,€ó óóó866€S.W.2d€544,€549€(œTenn.App›.€1993)€(ð ðTheÏparty€alleging€waiver€must€show€how€he€has€been€prejudiced€by€anyÏchange€of€position.ðð)ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Smith€has€not€demonstrated€œthat€heÏundertook€a€prejudicial›€œchange›€in€position€based€œupon€ShelbyððsÏletters.›€€Our€research€reveals€that€a€contention€quite€similar€toÏSmithððs€has€been€made€in€at€least€two€prior€Tennessee€cases,€andÏwas€summarily€rejected€in€both€instances.€€The€first€case€œelicited›Ïœthe›€following€comments€from€the€œSupreme€Court:›ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€second€contention,€that€there€was€a€waiverÏof€the€policy€provisions€mentioned,€or€thatÏthe€Insurance€Company€is€estopped€to€relyÏthereon,€must€be€denied.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThese€defenses,€waiver€and€estoppel,€are€basedÏon€a€letter€written€by€the€Company€to€œLewellyn›Ïwherein€it€pointed€out€certain€policyÏprovisions€under€which€it€contended€it€was€notÏliable€under€its€policy.€€However,€since€inÏthis€same€letter,€the€Insurance€CompanyÏreserved€every€defense€available€to€it€underÍthe€policy,€òòand€there€is€no€showing€whatsoeverÏof€any€harm€or€injury€to€the€appellant€becauseÏof€the€letter,€the€defenses€are€not€good.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òœLewellyn›€v.€State€Farm€œMut›.€Auto.€œIns›.€Co.,ó óóó€438€S.W.2d€741,Ï742„43€(Tenn.€1969)€(emphasis€added;€footnote€œomitted).ÌÌà àà àIn€ò òòòSpears€v.€Commercial€Ins.€Co.€of€Newark,€N.J.,Ïó ósupraóó,›€the€following€was€said:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àPlaintiff€also€contends€that€Commercial€waivedÏits€defense€to€the€effect€that€plaintiff€hadÏnot€suffered€an€injury€caused€by€accident.€ÏPlaintiff€bases€this€contention€on€a€letterÏsent€to€plaintiff€by€Commercial€prior€to€thisÏsuit.€€In€this€letter,€Commercial€advisedÏplaintiff€that€it€would€not€be€paying€lifetimeÏbenefits€under€the€accident€provision€of€theÏpolicy€because€ð ðhis€back€injury€occurred€inÏ1943€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€[the]Ïpolicy€and€not€while€the€policy€is€in€force.ðð€ÏIt€is€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€this€isÏinconsistent€with€the€position€taken€byÏCommercial€in€this€litigation„„that€theÏinjuries€complained€of€in€plaintiffððsÏcomplaint€were€not€caused€by€accidental€means.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€party€alleging€waiver€must€show€how€he€hasÏbeen€prejudiced€by€any€change€of€position.€Ïòòò òPrudential€Insurance€Co.€of€America€v.ÏFalls,€ó óóó169€Tenn.€324,€87€S.W.2d€567,€569Ï(1935).€€While€we€have€serious€doubts€as€toÏwhether€there€has€been€any€change€of€positionÏby€Commercial,€there€has€been€no€showing€byÏplaintiff€how€he€has€been€prejudiced€byÍCommercialððs€alleged€ð ðchange€of€position.ðð€ÏThis€argument€is€likewise€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòSpears,€ó óóó866€S.W.2d€at€549.ÌÌà àà àœAs€previously€indicated,›€Smith€has€not€shown€detrimentalÏreliance€upon€Shelbyððs€œassertions›€in€its€reservation€of€rights€andÏdenial€œletters.€€He€refers€to€the€fact€that€he€repaired€theÏbuilding€at€his€own€expense;€but€we€do€not€see€how€it€can€beÏclaimed€that€this€activity€was€prejudicial€to€him€or€even€taken€inÏreliance€on€Shelbyððs€statements€in€the€two€letters.›€€Therefore,€weÏreject€Smithððs€claims€of€waiver€and€œestoppel.›ÌÌà àà àà àWe€now€turn€our€attention€to€the€ð ðtheftððÏexclusionary€language€of€the€policy€upon€which€Shelby€relies.€ÏThat€exclusion€is€found€in€a€section€of€the€policy€entitledÏð ðCOVERED€CAUSES€OF€LOSS.ðð€€The€relevant€portions€of€that€sectionÏof€the€policy€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àò òA.à àCOVERED€CAUSES€OF€LOSSó óÌà àà àà8 à.€.€.€.€Covered€Causes€of€Loss€meanÏthe€following:ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà àà à8.à8 àò òVandalismó ó,€meaningÏwillful€and€maliciousÏdamage€to,€or€destructionÏof,€the€describedÏproperty.ÌÌà àà àà àà8 àWe€will€not€pay€for€lossÏor€damage:ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà àà àœà àb.›à8 àCaused€by€orÏresulting€fromÏtheft,€exceptÏfor€buildingÏdamage€causedÏby€the€breakingÏin€or€exitingÏof€burglars.ÌÌÌÌÓÓœ(bold€print€in€original).€€The›€plaintiff€does€not€claim€that€anyÏof€the€claimed€loss€resulted€from€ð ðdamage€caused€by€the€breakingÏin€or€exiting€of€burglars.ðð€€Therefore,€the€issue€is€squarelyÏpresented:€Is€the€plaintiffððs€loss€one€resulting€from€vandalism,€aÏcovered€event,€or€damage€ð ð[œc]aused›€by€or€resulting€from€theft,ðð€anÏexcluded€loss?ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€the€œparties,›€by€the€language€of€the€œpolicy,›Ïintended€to€exclude€from€coverage€the€type€of€loss€claimed€by€theÏœplaintiff€in€this€case.›€€It€is€œsignificant›€that€the€exclusionaryÏlanguage€pertaining€to€damage€ð ð[œc]aused›€by€or€resulting€fromÍtheftðð€follows€immediately€after€language€pertaining€to€theÏcovered€loss€of€vandalism.€€We€believe€the€œparties€purposely›Ïintended€to€œreflect›€œtheir›€œunderstanding›€that€damage€from€theftÏwould€not€be€included€within€the€œgeneral€concept›€of€vandalism.ÌÌà àà àOur€holding€is€bolstered€by€the€definition€of€vandalismÏfound€in€the€policy„„ððwillful€and€malicious€damage€to,€orÏdestruction€of,€the€described€property.ðð€€œThis›€definition€refersÏto€the€type€of€damage€caused€by€vandals€as€that€concept€isÏordinarily€understood,€i.e.,€damaging€something€simply€for€theÏsake€of€damaging€it.€€The€concept€of€theft€is€œentirely›€œdifferent.›€ÏA€œthief›€enters€a€œbuilding€in€order€to€steal›€œsomething;€certainly€aÏthiefððs€primary€focus€is€not€the€malicious€defacing,€destroying,Ïor€damaging€of€property.€€If›€the€motivation€and€end€result€is€thatÏof€theft€and€the€claimed€loss€is€ð ð[œc]aused›€by€or€œresult[s›]€fromÏœ[that]€theft,ðð›€there€is€no€coverage.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€every€knowledgeable€witness€testified€thatÏthe€apparent€motivation€œfor›€the€œentry€into€Smithððs›€building€wasÏœthe›€œstealing€of›€copper€wiring€and€tubing.€€Significantly,€SmithÏhimself€so€testified€in€several€instances,€including€theÏfollowing:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:€Now,€this€photograph€and€your€testimonyÏregarding€Frank€Barry€Heating€&€Air,€it€is€myÏunderstanding€that€basically,€that€whoever€didÏthis€to€your€building,€was€interested€in€theÏcopper?ÌÌà àà àA:€Yes.ÌÌà àà àQ:€They€wanted€and€did€take€all€the€copper€that€theyÏà àà àcould€take€out€of€this€building?ÌÌà àà àA:€Yes.€ÌÌà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà àà àQ:€And€it€is€your€belief€as€you€sit€here€today,€thatÏà àà àthe€main€thing€that€these€people€were€interested€in€wasÏà àà àthe€copper€and€the€value€to€sell€that€copper?ÌÌà àà àA:€Well,€thatððs€my€opinion,€ððcause€like€I€say,€thereððsÏà àà àother€buildings€all€over€town€they€was€doing€it€at€theÏà àà àsame€time.ÌÌÌÌÓÓRobert€E.€œKrzeminski›,€a€licensed€electrical€contractor€who€didÏelectrical€repairs€to€the€building,€testified€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà8 àQ:€And€what€did€you€discover€when€you€madeÏyour€initial€inspection?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA:€The€building€was€vacant€and€someone€hadÏgone€in€there€and€I€believe€the€primary€reasonÏfor€being€there€was€to€get€scrap€copper.€€TheyÏwere€after€wire,€they€were€after€plumbing,Ïthey€were€after€refrigeration€tubing,€allÏkinds€of€copper€they€were€primarily€after.ÌÌà àà àà à*à à€à à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà àà àQ:€All€right.€€Do€you€remember€we€talked€about,€and€IÏà àà àthink€you€kind€of€described€it€fairly€clearly€for€us,Ïà àà àabout€how€they€took€all€this€wiring€out?ÌÌà àà àA:€Uh„huh.ÌÌà àà àQ:€And€they€took€all€the€copper€out€of€the€airÏà àà àà àconditioning€unit?à àÌÌà àà àA:€Yeah.ÌÌà àà àQ:€They€were€after€the€copper€werenððt€they?ÌÌà àà àA:€I€think€at€that€time€copper€was€pretty€expensive.€Ïà àà àWell,€copper€has€been€high€for€the€last€five€years.€Ïà àà àBut€prior€to€that€it€was€pretty€cheap.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ€à àà àSmith€did€not€œoffer€any›€proof€œsuggesting€that€any€partÏof€the€damage€to€his€building€was€›œcaused›€œby€the€malicious€act€ofÏanother,›€i.e.,€œdamage€simply›€for€its€own€sake.€€We€find€and€holdÏthat€the€cause€of€œSmithððs€loss›€was€damage€due€to€theft€of€theÏcopper€œwiring›€and€tubing,€and€not€due€to€covered€vandalism.€€œTheÏdamage€to€the€building€occurred€because€the€thief€or€thievesÏwanted€to€get€to€the€copper.€€The›€Georgia€case€of€ò òòòPacificÏIndemnity€Co.€v.€N.A.,€Inc.,€ó óóó172€œS.E.2d›€192€(œGa.App›.€1969)Ïreaches€the€same€conclusion€œbased€upon›€analogous€facts.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€an€elementary€concept€of€insurance€law€thatÏœparties›€are€free€to€allocate€risks€of€loss€œas€they€see€fit.€€If›Íthe€policy€œof€insurance€reflecting›€the€œallocation›€of€œthose€risks›Ïis€clear€and€unambiguous,€as€in€this€case,€we€apply€it€as€written.€ÏThe€parties€œhere›€chose€to€exclude€from€coverage€the€risk€of€damageÏto€the€premises€caused€by€or€resulting€from€theft.€€UnfortunatelyÏfor€Smith,€this€is€exactly€the€kind€of€œdamage€that€occurred€inÏthis€case.€€The€Chancellorððs€judgment€is€contrary€to€the€facts€inÏthis€case.›€€ÌÌà àà àSince€we€find€that€Shelbyððs€defense€based€on€its€theoryÏthat€the€plaintiffððs€loss€was€caused€by€or€resulted€from€œtheft€isÏsustained€by€the€proof,›€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€address€itsÏalternative€œdefense€theory›€that€the€premises€were€vacant€at€theÏtime€of€the€loss.€€Obviously,€it€is€not€necessary€to€address€theÏplaintiffððs€issue€pertaining€to€the€alleged€bad€faith€of€Shelby.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€aforementioned€reasons,€the€judgment€of€theÏChancellor€is€reversed€and€the€complaint€dismissed€at€SmithððsÏcosts.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€and€assessed€to€Smith.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€œJ.›